Timeline for Why do some non-religious people reject artificial consciousness?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2019 at 11:02 | comment | added | user20253 | @Richard - There are sound logical reasons for scepticism towards artificial consciousness. The 'hard' problem does not arise because of religion, but because of logic and good sense. Forget religion, just examine the philosophical issues and you'll see the flaws in the concept. . | |
| Jun 15, 2019 at 17:56 | answer | added | present | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 13, 2019 at 22:44 | comment | added | curiousdannii | "Shouldn't a non-religious view lead almost immediately to the acceptance that humans are nothing more than machines themselves" Why? Please explain this weird assertion. | |
| Apr 30, 2019 at 3:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1123059634682650625 | ||
| Apr 23, 2019 at 10:25 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 27, 2019 at 11:45 | |||||
| Apr 23, 2019 at 10:09 | comment | added | Swami Vishwananda | unfortunately artificial consciousness is a matter of scientific speculation as it does not exist. | |
| Apr 23, 2019 at 1:24 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Apr 22, 2019 at 21:25 | comment | added | Conifold | You are confusing computational equivalence with functional equivalence. An oscillograph can be rigged into an analog calculator, it does not mean that how it functions has anything to do with that of a calculator. Exactly because Turing machines, and pretty much any other sufficiently complex processes, are universal computational equivalence is a near vacuous property, it provides no interesting information. You do not need anything non-computable to get something for understanding of which von Neumann architecture is useless. Just as literal Turing machine is useless for understanding PCs. | |
| Apr 22, 2019 at 21:12 | comment | added | Juggernaut | Newtonian gravity is known to be what? | |
| Apr 22, 2019 at 21:02 | comment | added | user4894 | @Juggernaut Newtonian gravity is known to be noncomputable. The jury is still out on relativity. | |
| Apr 22, 2019 at 20:34 | comment | added | Cell | If one accepts that organic life forms are equivalent to machines, that does not mean that consciousess can be captured by self-contained programming code alone assuming you are talking about what is colloquially known as AI. | |
| Apr 22, 2019 at 20:24 | comment | added | Juggernaut | Why too simplistic? Our computers (von Neumann architecture) are implementation of Turing machines (excluding memory limitation), so they can calculate any computable function. That's really enough to compute any physical object. Indeed, in order to prove that something is not computable, you would need an infinite amount of data to back such thesis. The point is, why making such strange claims about humans (i.e. they cannot be computed) from people who already accepted the absence of souls | |
| Apr 22, 2019 at 20:10 | comment | added | Conifold | "Shouldn't a non-religious view lead almost immediately to the acceptance that humans are nothing more than machines themselves?" No, it shouldn't even if one is a materialist. The types of machines whose operation we are familiar with (such as von Neumann computers) are too simplistic to account for human behavior, so we do not yet have a concept of the "machine" that we "just" could be. That the brain does not have the von Neumann architecture is uncontroversial and non-mysterious, artificial neural nets do not have it either, and we do not understand even their function well enough yet. | |
| Apr 22, 2019 at 20:08 | comment | added | user4894 | You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error. | |
| Apr 22, 2019 at 19:49 | comment | added | Frank Hubeny | I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome! | |
| Apr 22, 2019 at 19:49 | history | edited | Frank Hubeny | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar
|
| Apr 22, 2019 at 19:44 | answer | added | Frank Hubeny | timeline score: 6 | |
| Apr 22, 2019 at 19:10 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 22, 2019 at 19:12 | |||||
| Apr 22, 2019 at 19:07 | history | asked | Juggernaut | CC BY-SA 4.0 |